Steam & Excursion > An alternative to UP 4014 being selected

Concerning 4014 and it's selection by UP to be the Big Boy to be restored for service, I read somewhere on this forum that Ed never looked at the other 6 that are still displayed ( 4023 not included as we all know it's now landlocked at a park in Omha ) . Which other Big Boy would've been been a good candidate albeit not in as good a shape as 4014? If this is true....why was 4014 selected without checking the others? 

To save some time here at 3 pages discussing that very topic:  Link to 4014 discussion

GeeWhiz, if there was a Big Boy operational this guy would tear it all apart, throw some pieces away and claim it is not safe to operate in its current condition.

apollo17 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Concerning 4014 and it's selection by UP to be
> the Big Boy to be restored for service, I read
> somewhere on this forum that Ed never looked at
> the other 6 that are still displayed ( 4023 not
> included as we all know it's now landlocked at a
> park in Omha ) . Which other Big Boy would've
> been been a good candidate albeit not in as
> good a shape as 4014? If this is true....why was
> 4014 selected without checking the others?

"Good shape" is a relative term. They are all about the same.

Odd that the 4018 was moved at about the same time, with far
less fuss and bother.

Perhaps panel track was not the only thing getting laid out there.
 

Realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> apollo17 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Concerning 4014 and it's selection by UP to be
> > the Big Boy to be restored for service, I read
> > somewhere on this forum that Ed never looked at
> > the other 6 that are still displayed ( 4023
> not
> > included as we all know it's now landlocked at
> a
> > park in Omha ) . Which other Big Boy would've
> > been been a good candidate albeit not in as
> > good a shape as 4014? If this is true....why
> was
> > 4014 selected without checking the others?
>
> "Good shape" is a relative term. They are all
> about the same.
>
> Odd that the 4018 was moved at about the same
> time, with far
> less fuss and bother.
>
> Perhaps panel track was not the only thing getting
> laid out there.
>  

Hahahahaha thats funny..  "Perhaps panel track was not the only thing getting
laid out there."

Realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps panel track was not the only thing getting
> laid out there.

Hahahahaa

---

St. Louis wouldn't have given 4006 up to him anyway.  It would have probably been the easiest to access since it's 150' from the main and UP has a switch into the MOT.

I think the real question should be, how did UP get suckered into this? 

It would be one thing if UP were to pour unlimited resources into getting it running, but clearly they aren't. To me that says the company must not be that interested in getting it up and running. Everyday they don't touch it is still 3 to 5 years (at least) away from getting it running.

Perhaps someday there will be a book written about all this, or perhaps in a section of book, with some inside information. 

wabash2800 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps someday there will be a book written about
> all this, or perhaps in a section of book, with
> some inside information. 

It won't be from anybody at Trains Mag.. They are scared to say anything that would jeopardize the $$$ the Big Boy coverage has brought them

Spoony81 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wabash2800 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Perhaps someday there will be a book written
> about
> > all this, or perhaps in a section of
> book, with
> > some inside information. 
>
> It won't be from anybody at Trains Mag.. They are
> scared to say anything that would jeopardize the
> $$$ the Big Boy coverage has brought them


One reason WHY I no longer take a subscription to it.

Frisco1522 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> St. Louis wouldn't have given 4006 up to him
> anyway.  It would have probably been the easiest
> to access since it's 150' from the main and UP has
> a switch into the MOT.

Absolutely not to the current boss.

wabash2800 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps someday there will be a book written about
> all this, or perhaps in a section of book, with
> some inside information. 

Not enough inside info for you here?

Defective_Detector Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the real question should be, how did UP
> get suckered into this? 
>
> It would be one thing if UP were to pour unlimited
> resources into getting it running, but clearly
> they aren't. To me that says the company must not
> be that interested in getting it up and running.
> Everyday they don't touch it is still 3 to 5 years
> (at least) away from getting it running.

If anything, UP already had the resources, but frittered them away. Experienced people were targeted and purged one by one until all were gone. New hires that were experienced or showed initiative were also tossed.

Nobody left there with ANY restoration or maintenance experience. Priceless skills and experience were dumped along with the tools, parts and machines.

All one needed, if the series of calamities were not enough, was the silly circus of "preparing" and moving 4014. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

That tail was certainly wagging the dog when it came to that decision.   I wondered when that little chesnut was going to come to light.

Was anyone here present for any visits to any other locomotive besides 4014? Could someone at the Museum of Transportation confirm that 4006 was never an option for instance? Or the museum in Texas.

Posted from iPhone

Another topic of discussion I had with members at the RL&HS RailGaints display was what happens if the UP doesn't make the 4014 operational. I was told by several members that the UP has seven years to make the 4014 operational, from the time the railroad took possession of the engine,  or the railroad would have to return the locomotive back to the display in Pomona. Again, I'm just repeating what I was told.

kurt765 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Was anyone here present for any visits to any
> other locomotive besides 4014? Could someone at
> the Museum of Transportation confirm that 4006 was
> never an option for instance? Or the museum in
> Texas.
>
> Posted from iPhone

Contrary to popular belief, no other locomotives were tangibly inspected, shop records however, were briefly reviewed .

needles_sub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another topic of discussion I had with members at
> the RL&HS RailGaints display was what happens if
> the UP doesn't make the 4014 operational. I was
> told by several members that the UP has seven
> years to make the 4014 operational, from the time
> the railroad took possession of the engine,  or
> the railroad would have to return the locomotive
> back to the display in Pomona. Again, I'm just
> repeating what I was told.

Members seldom know the whole story. One would have to see the actual agreement or contract.

kurt765 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Was anyone here present for any visits to any
> other locomotive besides 4014? Could someone at
> the Museum of Transportation confirm that 4006 was
> never an option for instance? Or the museum in
> Texas.
>
> Posted from iPhone

The point is that there were no visits to any other of the locomotives. Zip, zilch, nada, none. This one was selected for one reason only, and it has nothing to do with it's condition compared to the others.